alt Hacker NewsI think people are really forgetting that JXL's encoders are bad right now. For instance, in TFA Jake presents
- The Firefox screenshot w/ lossless JXL at 66.9kB, when with a better encoder you get get it down to like 40.7kB (39% smaller) [1] (or 43kB if you need it to work with jxl-rs [2])
- The cat illustration w/ lossless JXL at 255.3kB, when with a better encoder you can get it down to 178kB (30% smaller) [3]
[1] https://www.linolevan.com/05-screenshot.jxl
Replies
Happy to see your version of the cat illustration doesn't come with massive decoder overhead. Are you planning to open source this encoder?
> with a better encoder you can get it down to 178kB
What encoder?
Yeah, it's very cool that jixel was able to achieve such large efficiency improvements!
Thank You. I was about to post I suspect both of those images would have worked better with JXL lossless.
Curious what is the better encoder here referring to?
Oh, that explains! I tried AVIF and JXL a few years ago and one of the two took ages to encode (a minute versus <1s for jpeg) to get similar compression ratios, and the other was somewhat reasonable on cpu complexity but significantly worse quality at the same size / much bigger to achieve the same quality as good old jpeg. I ended up concluding that jpeg is still the best for the specific image I was trying to lossily compress, but that was probably just the encoder then